YT for next: Youtube daily Feb 21 2018

[ ♪ Intro ♪ ]

We usually make pregnancy sound like a wonderful, 9 month period of parental bliss.

But if you really think about it, pregnancy is kind of bonkers.

When you're pregnant, you're essentially growing an alien parasite inside of you, having

your entire body tweaked and drained to support something that's half you, and half some

other person.

Biologically, it's quite a feat.

And yet, it happens all the time.

You, me, and every human on Earth, came from this strange quasi-parasitic system.

So, today, we're going in utero.

We'll talk about how embryos develop, how they get their food and get rid of their waste,

and do all this while staying under the radar of their parent's immune system.

At the center of it all is the placenta.

It's an organ — a set of tissues dedicated to a particular task.

And it's actually the first organ that you make, and the only temporary organ in the human body.

Once a baby pops out, the placenta comes out as afterbirth.

Which, to be honest, looks a little like something from the movie Alien.

Since nobody needs the placenta anymore, it's usually thrown away.

These days, though, eating it has also become a trend, even though researchers haven't

found any health benefits.

But this weird organ is what's been making all 9 months of pregnancy possible!

The placenta is made from cells from the fetus and the pregnant parent.

And it basically serves as an interface between the two.

It helps deliver food, dump waste, and exchange gases like oxygen and carbon dioxide that

are critical for life.

The placenta begins to form within a week or so of fertilization.

In case you need a recap, this is when the sperm meets an egg to form a zygote, or fertilized egg.

The zygote divides a few times as it travels to the uterus, or womb, and becomes a semi-hollow

ball of cells called a blastocyst.

The blastocyst is important because it's made of two types of cells.

There's a clump of cells inside, which will go on to make the embryo and eventually the fetus.

And there's a single layer of cells on the outside, known as trophoblasts, which will

form the fetal part of the placenta.

These outer cells invade the lining of the uterus to make the whole thing stick, or implant,

and truly kick off pregnancy.

Different types of trophoblasts then go on to form the amniotic sac, which is really

just a protective bag of fluid the embryo floats in.

It's thin, but super tough, and provides cushioning and room to grow.

Inside the amniotic sac, the embryo gets to work quickly, starting to develop its nervous

system, and then its heart and blood vessels, followed by other organs.

Driving all this growth is food, thanks to what's essentially a big pool of parental blood.

Yep, it turns out that embryos are kind of like vampires.

See, early on, the invading trophoblasts destroy a bunch of the tissue in the uterine wall

and remodel the blood vessels.

Trophoblasts attack vessels from the inside and outside, turning them into limp, open

pockets of blood.

Those pockets help make sure that there's a steady flow of parental blood rich in oxygen

and nutrients like glucose, amino acids, and fatty acids — all of which the embryo needs

to grow.

Those chemicals get passed on to the embryo through a branching network of blood vessels

that travel through the placenta and feed into the umbilical cord.

But there's always a membrane between parental blood and fetal blood.

The blood pools are close enough for nutrients and gases to get passed back and forth through

the membrane — usually through diffusion, which is when molecules move from higher concentration

to lower concentration.

But they're still separate.

Because direct contact could cause problems… like total annihilation of the embryo.

We'll get to more of this later, but because a baby is half another person, its cells are

full of proteins that the pregnant parent doesn't recognize as their own.

Direct contact would mean the immune cells in the parent's blood would mount an attack

to get rid of the half-foreign being — like it would stomp out a flu virus.

To make sure that doesn't happen, we evolved a placental system that always puts a membrane

in between the blood supplies.

So, through processes like diffusion, a parent delivers sugar and other goodies to the baby.

And the baby can dump all of its carbon dioxide and waste products into the parent's blood pool.

Garbage problem solved!

Based on all of this, you can probably tell that pregnancy is kind of blood-intensive.

And one of the biggest changes to someone's body, besides making space for a new human,

is to their cardiovascular system.

Blood vessels across their body widen.

Their heart rate ticks up an extra 10 to 20 beats per minute.

And ultimately, they pump 40 to 50% more blood.

You can actually see some of this extra blood flow as a rosy blush on people's faces,

which is sometimes called pregnancy glow.

It happens partially because of the increased blood output.

Beyond glowing skin, though, these changes matter to the health of both humans.

They make sure the placenta gets enough blood to constantly refresh the blood pool — something

that happens 2 to 3 times per minute.

That way, the baby gets enough oxygen and nutrients.

And the additional blood flow also helps the parents' kidneys process the extra waste

that's getting dumped into their bodies.

They're eating and excreting for two.

One of the ways scientists think this happens is through a hormone called relaxin, which

dilates blood vessels to make them wider.

This allows pregnant people to safely handle more blood pumping through their bodies, instead

of boosting their blood pressure.

Relaxin levels naturally go up in people during ovulation, and stay high if they become pregnant.

The hormone might also help later in pregnancy by relaxing ligaments in the pelvis to make

it easier to deliver the baby.

Other hormones, like estrogen, might also be involved.

And while the parent's body initially makes most of the hormones, eventually a bunch are

made by cells in the placenta.

So basically, the fetus ends up controlling a lot of the show.

And some of this stuff borders on mind control.

Progesterone, for instance, is a hormone that keeps the pregnancy going, and even changes

how the parent breathes.

This hormone tells the brain to lower the amount of carbon dioxide in the body, so pregnant

people will actually take bigger breaths.

This provides more oxygen, which the baby needs, and also makes it easier to get rid

of the carbon dioxide, so breathing is more efficient.

Clearly, the fetus has no qualms about doing whatever it needs to do to get things for itself.

And by the eighth month, some researchers think that about 25% of the proteins a fetus

gets are used to make hormones to manipulate their parent.

Now, if the cardiovascular stuff sounded intense, think about the fetus's near-monopoly on glucose.

Not only does the baby want more blood, it wants more sugar in that blood.

And one way the fetus accomplishes that is to make their parent diabetic.

Or at least, diabetic-like.

The fetal part of the placenta releases a hormone called human placental lactogen, among

other chemicals, that decreases the pregnant parent's insulin sensitivity.

Insulin is a hormone that controls how much glucose is in your blood.

When it binds to cells, it tells them to stop releasing sugar into the bloodstream, and

to start taking up more sugar from the blood.

So when you're less sensitive to insulin, you don't clear your blood of glucose as

quickly, so you have higher blood sugar.

This can work to the baby's advantage, which is probably why it happens.

The fetus can take all of that extra sugar for itself.

Now, this whole fetal exploitation of their parent is usually okay.

But sometimes, especially in people who already have diabetes or are at higher risk, this

can lead to something called gestational diabetes.

In gestational diabetes, the parent's blood sugar goes too high, and the fetus ends up

getting way more sugar than it needs.

If that happens, the baby can grow really big — to the point where it's not safe

to do a natural delivery, and doctors do a C-section, which involves surgery.

There can also be other complications, for both the parent and the baby, so doctors tend

to keep close tabs on sugar levels.

The fetus's biggest trick of all, though, might be its ability to stay out of the way

of the parent's immune system.

After all, the baby is still a guest… and kind of an interloper.

Yes, it's walled off in a fluid-filled sac, and protected by the placenta.

And these physical barriers go a long way in explaining how pregnancy can even work at all.

But the fact remains that many cells of the placenta come from the fetus, so they're

chock full of a mix of proteins — some foreign to the pregnant parent and some not.

But, somehow, they touch parental tissue with little to no problem.

Immunologists have wondered about this for more than 60 years.

At first, they assumed that pregnant people simply didn't make immune cells that recognize

the fetus.

But we now know they do.

So, how do developing fetuses avoid damage?

We don't know the full story, but one big way seems to be a surge in a type of immune

cell called a T regulatory cell.

These cells basically dial down immune responses, rather than increasing them.

And they show up in large numbers as soon as the blastocyst implants in the uterus,

and possibly even earlier.

Another clue comes from looking at the proteins on the surface of the trophoblasts — the

placental cells that do the invading.

Normally, cells have proteins on their surfaces that different immune responders can recognize.

That's how an immune response starts, and your body can tell you're infected with

a bunch of bad bacteria.

But trophoblasts are missing a lot of these surface proteins, or have slight changes to them.

And that could give them a kind of invisibility cloak.

The immune cells in the uterus are also different.

Normally, natural killer cells do exactly what their name implies — they kill.

But the ones in the uterine lining don't.

Basically, they still have the proteins they need to kill, but the cells also have inhibitory receptors.

And when those inhibitory receptors are activated, it prevents the release of those deadly proteins.

These natural killer cells are around when the trophoblasts are reworking the parent's

blood vessels, and might even help by pumping out special factors.

In mice that are engineered to lack natural killer cells in the uterus, the parental part

of the placenta doesn't grow properly, and baby mice are born abnormally small.

There are other ways that researchers think babies avoid detection, too.

And most of the time, they pull it off.

But scientists are now realizing that many fertility problems might actually be immune

problems that crop up very early in pregnancy.

If an embryo can stick around long enough, though, they might get the last laugh.

Because decades after pregnancy, scientists have found fetal cells still hanging out.

This is called microchimerism, and may be one of the strangest features of pregnancy.

It's actually a two-way street: kids end up with cells from their parent in them, too.

Babies can even end up with cells from their older siblings or older generations, kinda

like a Russian nesting doll of past pregnancies!

But people finish pregnancy with far more cells from their children than the other way around.

Doctors haven't figured out if they're meaningful in any way.

Some have proposed that these foreign cells can cause autoimmune diseases later, although

that hasn't been fully demonstrated yet.

If you're feeling sentimental, though, you can think of them as a literal keepsake in

your body.

Pregnancy means you'll always carry part of your kid with you, whether you want to or not.

Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow!

We wouldn't be able to make all these videos about how weird humans are without our on Patreon. patrons

So if you want to help support this show, you can go to patreon.com/scishow.

And don't forget to go to youtube.com/scishow and subscribe!

[ ♪ Outro ♪ ]

For more infomation >> How Pregnancy Is Like Growing an Alien Inside You - Duration: 11:04.

-------------------------------------------

Sandy Berger, Consumer Electronics Expert, Talks Voice Assistants! - Duration: 1:00:58.

For more infomation >> Sandy Berger, Consumer Electronics Expert, Talks Voice Assistants! - Duration: 1:00:58.

-------------------------------------------

Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - JMU Campus Climate (Video 3 of 5) - Duration: 11:49.

Alright so today in this video we're going to be talking about section 2 of

our Madison Matters study which talks about JMU's campus climate and

specifically we're going to delve into sort of students perception of the

campus in terms of whether they feel like they belong on campus, their

perceptions of interconnectedness, and things such as that.

So to specifically talk about section II we're going to be looking at these

four scales. The first one is sense of belonging, the

second one is perception of connectedness, the third is acceptance of

diversity, and the fourth is diversity and inclusivity. As we go on through this

video we're going to touch on the different slides and sort of explain what these

scales look for what are some examples of some questions and we're also going

to look at the internal reliability that these scales have as well. So one of the

first things we're looking at is sense of belonging and this is a student's

personal sense of belonging to JMU. In order to measure that it is a six

item scale that we use it has an internal reliability of .92 which

is fairly high. An example of one of the questions that we did ask our

participants was "I feel a sense of belonging to the JMU campus community." As

we can see we use a six point Likert scale that goes from strongly disagree

to strongly agree. So the next series of slides were going to be talking about group

differences when it comes to sense of belonging to JMU's campus. So for

example in this slide, we're talking about race, gender, biological sex, and sexual

orientation. If you look right under you are going to see a blue table and that

blue table is going to tell us whether the results are significant and if we

conducted either an F-test or a t-test. As we see here we have a little

orientation to the graphs we have provided. So for example we notice some

of these shapes down here. And what these shapes show is significant differences

between the two. So for example White students have a higher sense of

belonging compared to Black students as seen with the blue square that's provided. And

as we go along further we see the Hispanic students have a higher sense

belonging compared to our Black students as seen by the purple

diamond that's at the bottom. And as we go on for example when referencing the gender we

see that female students have a higher sense of belonging compared to transgender

students as seen with the triangle provided. And also male

students have a higher sense of belonging to JMU's campus compared to

transgender students as seen with the star. Then lastly when looking here

to the far right we're looking at sexual orientation and we see that our

heterosexual students had a better sense of belonging compared to our bisexual

students and other students as seen with the pentagon and the circle provided below.

In this other category there are students that don't identify as homosexual or

bisexual so this can mean that they are pansexual or queer students. When looking at this slide

the group differences we're examining on this slide are class year, residential

status, citizenship status, and language background and as seen in the previous

slide we also have a blue table here that's provided that's gonna mention whether

and an F or t-test was conducted and what the p-value is for that.

As we can see here on the far right we find that native English-speaking

students have a higher sense of belonging to JMU's campus compared to

our bilingual and multilingual students. An example that could be that this is a

university found in the US and it's very predominantly English-speaking campus and

country as a whole so that could lead to reasons as to why they might not feel

like they belong on campus. In this slide we're looking at right now we're looking

at ability status, income level, and athlete status when it comes to sense of

belonging and as we can see here we have another blue table that's going to provide

us the p value and whether an F or t-test was conducted.

When looking at the far left we see that our students with no

disabilities had a higher sense of belonging compared to our students who

have mental health issues as seen with the diamonds provided under. Now when we

look at the middle we're talking about income and when it comes to income

students that are under the $20,000 income marker have a lower sense of

belonging compared to our students that are found between the $80,000 and

$100,000 bracket. So switching gears a little bit we're going to be

talking about perceptions of connectedness. Compared to the other

scale of sense of belonging that refers to one's personal sense of belonging

campus, perceptions of connectedness is how one perceives the campus is connected

and sort of the community that forms with that and to analyze that we used

a six item scale that has an internal reliability of 0.78. That's

fairly high as well and when looking at an example question one of them is "In

general I feel that the campus climate at JMU is communicative."

So in this slide we're looking at in particular when it comes to perceptions

of connectedness when it comes to race, gender, biological sex, and sexual

orientation. As we can see again we have another blue table that talks about the

F and t-test, whether an F or t-test was performed as well as the p-value. One

of the first significant findings we see here when it comes to race is that our

White students had a higher perception of connectedness compared to our Asian/

Pacific Islander students and Black students. Looking at here in the middle

when talking about gender for example we can see that our transgender students

had a lower perception of connectedness compared to our male and female students.

Then when looking at the far right when it comes to sexual orientation we can

see that our heterosexual students had a higher perception of connectedness

compared to our homosexual students, bisexual students, and other students as

well. So in this slide we're going to be talking about class year,

residential status, citizenship status, and language background. Once

again we have a table provided that tells us whether an F or t-test was

conducted and the associated p-value. So when looking at class year we can see

that first years have the higher perception of connectedness. A reason as

to why graduate students might have a lower perception of connectedness could

be because of maybe a lack of student organizational involvement or because

they live off campus and they miss out on the events

that are happening. When looking at language background a reason

as to why bilingual and multilingual students have a person have a lower

perception of connectedness could be that when we look at JMU's campus it's

predominantly English speaking and a lot of people speak English

in and around the campus. The group differences we're going to talk about in this slide are

going to be ability status, income level, and athlete status. When looking down

again we have another blue table that's going to tell us whether an F or t-test

was conducted and the associated p-value with that. Looking at the ability

status we see that no disability students have a higher perception of

connectedness compared to our students that have mental health issues or sensory or

motor disabilities. A lot of that could be maybe they perceive the campus to

have a lack of resources to help students that do have disabilities. So

when looking here we're going to be talking about acceptance of diversity

and this is how students perceive how accepting the campus is in regards to

people of different sexual orientation, ability status, race, income level, etc.

We used a nine item scale had an internal reliability of 0.93 which is fairly high. And

when looking at this slide right here the groups we're looking at are race, gender, biological sex, and sexual

orientation. Once again we have a blue table that's going to tell us the

p-value and then if we did an F or a t-test. When looking at race

in particular we see that White students have a higher perception of accepting of

diversity compared to our Asian and Pacific Islander students. When looking at

gender we see that our transgender students have a lower

perception of acceptance of diversity compared to our male and female students.

And then when looking to the far right when it comes to sexual orientation we

see that our heterosexual students had a higher perceived acceptance of diversity

compared to our homosexual students, bisexual students, and other students.

So when looking at this slide we're looking at class year, residential status,

citizenship status, and language background. Once again you have another

blue table that's provided that tells us whether an F or t-test was performed as

well as the associated p-value. And when looking at class year in particular we

see that the longer that students are at JMU's campus the less accepting

of diversity they see the campus is. In particular we see that our

non-traditional students marked as other perform the lowest on this scale. When

looking at language background we see that our native English speaking

students have a higher perception of accepted diversity compared to our

bilingual and multilingual students on campus. When looking at these group differences

we're looking at ability status, income level, and athlete status. Once again we

have another blue table that's provided that tells us the associated p-value and

whether after an F or t-test was performed. Here, at the far left we're looking at

ability status and you see that our students with no disabilities have a

higher perception of accepted diversity compared to our students

with mental health issues or sensory and motor disabilities. So in section 2.4

we're talking about diversity and inclusivity. That refers to something that is called

structural diversity and that's diversity that you can see on campus whether that

means faculty or students that come from different backgrounds. To find that we

had a 9 item scale that had an internal reliability of .94.

And an example of a question that we asked is, "I think that the JMU student body

is diverse with respect to..." sexual orientation, ability status, etc. So

the group differences we're looking at this slide are race, gender, biological sex, and

sexual orientation. Once again we have another blue table that's provided that's

telling us whether an F or t-test was conducted as well as the associated p-value.

When looking at this graph we can see that there's significant differences

across race, gender, biological sex, and sexual orientation inferring the campus

isn't diverse or inclusive enough. In particular when looking at race, we see that our

White students had a higher perception of diversity and inclusivity compared to

our biracial/multiracial students. When looking at gender we see that our

transgender students scored lower on this scale compared to our male

and female students. When looking at biological sex we see that females

scored lower than men on this scale. Then lastly when talking about sexual

orientation we have two findings to mention. The first finding that we see is a

heterosexual students scored higher than homosexual students and other students.

The second finding we see as well is that our bisexual students scored higher

than other students. When looking at here the group differences we're examining are

class year, residential status, citizenship status, and language background. Once

again we have another table at the bottom that tells us whether an F or t-test

was performed as well as the associated p-value. When looking at class year we see

that the earlier you are in your academic career at JMU the more diverse

and inclusive you perceive the campus to be with first-year students scoring

higher than everyone else and then sophomore students scoring higher than

everyone else except when compared to our first-year students.

The group differences we're examining this slide are ability status, income level, and athlete

status. Once again we have another blue table down there that tells us whether an F or t-test

was performed as well as the associated p-value. When looking at

ability status we see that students that have mental health issues

see the campus as not diverse or inclusive compared to students with

ADHD and learning disabilities or no disability. When looking at student athletes we see that

student athletes perceive the campus to be inclusive and diverse and a reason as to

why that could be is because they come from more diverse backgrounds whether they are

out of state or maybe even international students. So in closing we can see that students

from dominant cultural groups reported a better campus climate than students

from a minority cultural group. This sort of follows societal trends that we

see. Now ways that we can use this data is first as hiring and promoting more

diverse faculty, staff, and students. And this doesn't mean just having faculty of

color this means having faculty from different countries, different religions,

different sexual orientations. And the reason why we should have those

faculty is because they help integrate innovative teachers techniques and

valuing diverse insights which will create a more inclusive climate for JMU. And my

colleague Bri will elaborate more on why students think it's important to have

that diversity in the classroom in a later video. Lastly it's important that there is

more organizational collaboration with greater commitment to social justice such as

having better communication between offices found on JMU's campus.

So we just wanted to say thanks so much for watching our series of videos about the JMU campus

climate. For more information about the climate you can click on any of the

links in our YouTube series or send us an email to

madisonmattersjmu@gmail.com.

For more infomation >> Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - JMU Campus Climate (Video 3 of 5) - Duration: 11:49.

-------------------------------------------

How to Seek Therapy - Duration: 5:25.

[♪♩INTRO]

Seeking a therapist to help address mental health issues is super common.

You might have friends or family who talk about going to therapy.

Maybe you yourself have suggested a friend go to therapy.

And yet, it can still be really hard to reach out and ask for help for yourself, even when

you're struggling with common issues like anxiety, depression, trauma, attention deficit

disorder or addiction.

Talking about mental health is still highly stigmatized in a lot of western culture, and

you might feel weird acknowledging out loud that you need some help.

But hey!

We're here to walk you through this process.

A quick caveat, though: This video is intended for people who are not in immediate crisis.

If you are, call the National Suicide Prevention Hotline at 1-800-273-8255 right away.

Got it?

Great!

Step 1: Deciding to seek help.

If you're here, you might have already decided that you'd like to seek therapy.

But in case you're not sure if you "qualify" for therapy, here you go: The only requirement

for seeking therapy is that you want to try to talk to an impartial professional about

what's going on in your life.

Period.

There are lots of tests you can take online to determine if you have symptoms of depression

or anxiety, but ultimately, you can make the final decision.

If you're on the fence about going to therapy, it can be easy to convince yourself that you're

okay because other people have it worse.

But you do not need to measure your own suffering against anyone else's.

Yes, plenty of other people might have it worse.

But you are not those people, and you get to decide if your sadness or anxiety or any

other problem is too much for you to deal with alone.

Step 2: Choose a professional.

The word "therapist" actually refers to a lot of different types of professionals

with a range of training.

You're probably going to look for a licensed professional counselor, a social worker or

a psychologist.

You can find a therapist by asking for a referral from your general practitioner, asking friends

for references or just Googling resources in your area.

It's best to look for someone who specializes in the kind of thing that you would like to

address, like anxiety or depression.

Psychologists and most other kinds of licensed therapists can't legally prescribe medication,

but they are trained in many pyschotherapy methods, like cognitive behavioral therapy

which can help you learn how to change your patterns of thinking and improve your outlook.

But if you also think that antidepressants or other medication might be helpful, most

therapists are not licensed to prescribe drugs.

Your therapist might refer you to a psychiatrist, who can write prescriptions.

No matter who you choose, it's totally okay to make appointments with a couple different

therapists to see who you like best.

Sometimes you might need to meet a few different therapists before you find one that

really clicks with you.

Step 3: Make the call to set up an appointment.

This can seem super daunting, but afterward you will be amazed at how easy it was.

So, once you've picked out the therapist's office you'd like to try, call the office

and ask if they're accepting new patients.

If they are, ask what kind of insurance they take and what the doctor's hourly rates

are.

If all those things work for you and your budget, then you can tell the receptionist

a little bit about what you'd like help with.

This can be pretty general, like, "I'm hoping to address my anxiety issues."

The receptionist will be able to tell you if you've arrived at the right place, and

get you set up with your appointment.

Step 4: Go to the appointment!

It's all right if you're nervous going into it.

Every therapy session is different, but you can probably expect your therapist to ask

what's going on and let you talk about whatever you feel like.

And yeah, just like in the movies, your therapist might have a big leather couch that you lie

on while they take some notes.

Depending on their style and specialty, they will probably recommend various kinds of tools

for you to use in your day-to-day life.

Don't be afraid to ask questions, like, "Why would my brain work that way?" or

"How can I change this pattern of thinking?"

This will help guide both you and your therapist toward helpful answers.

Step 5: Keep at it!

You might go to therapy once, a few times, or consistently for years.

You might notice results right away or you might not, but either way, you shouldn't

put pressure on yourself to feel "fixed".

By seeking out information, you've already taken a big step in taking care of yourself,

which is a super adult thing to do.

Thank you as always for watching.

We hope that this video was helpful.

If you want to see more of Hank and me, visit us at youtube.com/learnhowtoadult,

and subscribe.

Your therapist might refer you to a—

Psy-key-a-trist-ahhh

Ughhahhh!

This seems— [laughter]

Your therapist might have a big leather couch that you lie on while you take some notes.

While THEY take some notes.

Your therapist might have a big leather couch that you lie on while... THEY take some notes.

[laughter]

Let me do that again...

If you more... of Hank and me visit—

Bleh. My brain is shutting down.

[off screen] Last one!

I know

[laughter]

For more infomation >> How to Seek Therapy - Duration: 5:25.

-------------------------------------------

Kathie Lee Gifford Remembers Dear Friend, Reverend Billy Graham | TODAY - Duration: 1:26.

For more infomation >> Kathie Lee Gifford Remembers Dear Friend, Reverend Billy Graham | TODAY - Duration: 1:26.

-------------------------------------------

Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - Classroom Experiences and Campus Resources - Duration: 10:45.

Hi my name is Brianna Intili. I'm a research assistant from James Madison

University's Cultural and Racial Diversity Studies Lab. I'll be discussing

sections 4 and 5 of the Madison Matters presentation which discusses polls

taken on students' classroom experience and their awareness and use

of campus resources. This is Dr. Lee. He's the director of the Madison Matters

project and he'll be assisting me in this presentation. Section 4

has two subscales, the first of which is called "faculty comfort discussing

diversity" which measures students' perceptions of professors' comfortability

discussing diversity issues such as religion, sexual orientation, race, gender,

etc. It's composed of a 9 item scale which has an internal reliability of

0.96 which is pretty high. The second scale is called Diversity Issues

in the Classroom. This measures students' perceptions of professors' awareness of

these diversity issues and their ability to handle them in the classroom. It is

a 12 item scale with an internal reliability of 0.81 which is

also pretty high. In the next series of slides we will be showing you the results

of each subscale in which the first one that measures faculty's comfort

discussing diversity. We looked for significance between groups of different

race, gender, biological sex, and sexual orientation. Higher scores indicate

positive perception that professors are comfortable discussing various topics.

In the next few slides you will be seeing a small blue box which indicates whether

each group is measured with an F-test or t-test with a p-value in which two

stars will indicate significance. In this slide we notice significance in both

race and sexual orientation. The first measurement to show significance was

race in which Hispanic and Latinx had the highest reports that faculty felt

comfortable discussing diversity compared to Asian and Pacific Islander

and Black and African-American students. White students also rated faculty better

than did Asian/Pacific Islander and Black students. The second and last

area to show significance was sexual orientation in which heterosexual

students perceive faculty as being more comfortable discussing diversity as

opposed to other students which are not homosexual or bisexual such as pansexual,

asexual, or queer. The next slide of the first subscale measures groups of

different class year, residential status, citizenship status, and language

background. Once again higher scores indicate positive perceptions that

professors are comfortable discussing various topics. Again we have this blue

box in which we only indicated a significance for class year in which

non-traditional students felt professors were less comfortable

discussing diversity than did freshmen/first-years, sophomores, and graduate students. The

third slide of the first subscale measures people of different ability

status, income level, and athlete status. If you notice this blue box we found

that nothing was significant which means that none of these groups showed a

significant result in whether or not they thought professors felt more

comfortable discussing diversity issues. The second subscale measures diversity

issues in the classroom which means students' perceptions of professors'

ability to handle diverisity issues in the classroom.

We looked for differences comparing people of different race, gender, biological sex, and

sexual orientation. Higher scores indicate an increased perception that

professors are able to handle the various diversity issues. Once again we

have one of these small blue boxes in which we only found the significance and

biological sex. We found that female students felt that

professors were less able to handle various diversity issues than did male

students. If you notice in the blue box we also have a significant p-value for

the group of gender. However in the post hoc test we did not pick up any

significant result. It looks like however that transgender students were reporting

that professors were less able to handle various diversity issues in the

classroom as compared to male and female students. This next slide of the second

subscale measures diversity issues in the classroom with different people of

class year, residential status, citizenship status, and language background. We also

found a significance as you can see in this little box with class year in which

seniors reported a higher ability of professors to handle diversity issues as

compared to juniors. And first-year students also reported a higher ability

of professors than did sophomores and juniors. This next slide of the second

subscale measures people of different ability status, income level, and

athlete status. We found significance in just the athlete status group in which

student athletes reported a higher ability for professors to handle

diversity issues than did non student athletes. Some of what we know about this

demographic is that they come from more diverse backgrounds which means that

they are more familiar with these concepts and feel faculty are able to

handle diversity issues in the classroom. In the next few slides we are reporting

results from open-ended questions about what we asked in the Madison Matters

survey in sections 4 and 5. This first question asks what the best class you

have taken at JMU educating about diversity issues was. In the table below

we have the top ten classes that students reported. The other students

reported so many classes that if you are interested we invite you to email us for the full report.

Most of these classes were gen ed

classes because the majority of our sample were first year students. The best

class reported SOCI110 in which 9.7 % of

citations reported as the best class. A follow-up question was administered

where we summarized which department each course was in. The department with the

highest number of responses was sociology and anthropology.

Before we move on to section 5 I'd just like to discuss our findings of section 4.1 and 4.2.

Given the results from these sections we can use this data to increase awareness

of student perceptions of faculty and encourage faculty to learn and care more

about more diverse experiences. Section 5 of this survey looks at awareness and

use of campus resources in which we asked three questions. The first of which

is "which of the following campus resources have you heard of?" The second

is "which of the following campus resources have been contacted visited or

used?" The third question asks "what specific university resources do you

think JMU needs more of to improve the campus climate?" This question asks

"which of the following campus resources you have heard of?" in which students

reported the most they knew of was the Counseling Center which was followed by

the Office of Disability Services, the LGBT & Ally Education program, the Dean

of Students Office, the Center for Multicultural Student Services and the

Office of International Programs along with JMU's Women's and Gender Studies Program.

This question asked "which of the

following campus resources have you contacted, visited, or used?" The top

three highest reported answers were the Counseling Center, the Office of

International Programs, and the Office of Disability Services. So one of the surprising things we found about

this data is that it seemed like many students were not aware of programs such

as the Center for Multicultural Student Services, the LGBT and Ally Education

Program, Safe Zone, or JMU Women's and Gender Studies program. What we think

this might mean may be a general lack of awareness of opportunities to learn more

about diversity issues at JMU so maybe what campus can do more of is

to promote this kind of programming so all members of the campus are more

involved in these sorts of events. So the next question we asked in the survey was

"what specific University resources do you think JMU needs more of to improve

the campus climate?" So we analyzed the data from the 545 valid responses and we

found that diversity programming was the most popular response. Many students

indicated the need for more extracurricular activities about

diversity, required diversity classes as part of the gen ed curriculum as well as

expanding the Center for Multicultural Student Services. The second most popular

response from our dataset was improving counseling resources so expanding the

Counseling Center, hiring more staff, and so forth. Third most popular response was

creating greater awareness of resources that exist and that was followed by

resources specifically dedicated to women and gender issues which was

followed by about 5.1% of respondents who indicated a need for

greater LGBTQ+ related resources. If you follow our slide the sixth most

popular response was disability related resources followed by increased racial

diversity on campus and on the right-hand side were some responses that

were related to one another. 12 students said there was a need to improve the

system of reporting discrimination on campus and 11 students said there was a

need for better safety and police training on campus and if you look a

little bit lower 1.5% of students said there was a better need for more

awareness of sexual assault policies as well as greater accountability for those

policies so some of these responses were related to one another.

I should also point out that a large share of the responses were neutral with respect to

this question. About 29% of respondents said that things were

okay or they said "not applicable". And finally 12.5% of responses were

miscellaneous and could not be categorized in any of the other themes

identified by the sample so some of these responses included things like

changing the housing environment, better parking, interfaith resources, or

language help. I also want to point out that about 900 respondents did not even

answer this question which sort of limits some of the generalizability but that

might also tell us that there was a large section of the sample that

actually felt that JMU's resources for campus climate were fine or simply that

people could not identify a resource that could be improved. The data

collected from section 5 shows us that students mostly want increase in

awareness of existing resources or create new resources as well as increase

campus diversity.

So we just wanted to say thanks so much for watching our

series of videos about the JMU campus climate. For more information about the

climate you can click on any of the links in our YouTube series or send us

an email to madisonmattersjmu@gmail.com.

For more infomation >> Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - Classroom Experiences and Campus Resources - Duration: 10:45.

-------------------------------------------

Secret Service Just Evacuated And Sealed Off Area Around White House - Duration: 4:25.

Secret Service Just Evacuated And Sealed Off Area Around White House – Active Situation

Unfolding Now.

Tensions toward President Donald Trump have been escalating across the country over the

past week since the Florida school shooting, which the left immediately came out blaming

the president for.

Targeting all their rage and fear toward him for his support of the Second Amendment and

insistence that this tragedy was caused by a mental health issue, has been their latest

tactic at taking him down.

With a rise in anger and misguided rage, comes an increased threat level, which we're seeing

unfold around the White House after Secret Service made an especially alarming discovery.

This isn't the first time that the immediate area around the People's House with Trump

in office has gone into lockdown, evacuation, and a sealing off of streets.

It seems to coincide with every bout of liberal outrage launched at the president since lunatics

suffering mental health issues feel empowered by they rage they're fed to do something

about it.

The Washington Post reports:

The New Executive Office Building, next to the White House, was evacuated Wednesday morning

on a report of a suspicious vehicle nearby, according to the Secret Service.

The incident started around 8 a.m. near the building, which is located on 17th Street

NW, between Pennsylvania Avenue and H Street.

Police closed part of 17th Street until the Secret Service cleared the vehicle around

9 a.m.

Some parts of Pennsylvania Avenue and Lafayette Square were also closed to pedestrians.

At 9:22 a.m., the U.S. Secret Service said in a Twitter post that explosive experts had

"cleared the suspicious vehicle," but pedestrian areas remained closed.

The Secret Service posted an update on their certified Twitter account not long after the

streets had been evacuated and they had a chance to investigate the suspicious vehicle.

"UPDATE #2: Explosive Ordnance Detection personnel have cleared the suspicious vehicle.

Vehicle road closures have been lifted.

Pennsylvania Avenue and Lafayette Park remain closed to pedestrians."

Raw Story reported what witnesses arrived at as the active evacuation was underway:

Witnesses said authorities turned away federal workers heading to the New Executive Office

Building and cleared pedestrians from sidewalks.

At least a dozen emergency vehicles had responded to the scene.

About 100 White House staff members were held in a park before authorities began letting

some into the White House.

There have been numerous occasions within Trump's first year in office that this kind

of situation has occurred, from suspicious packages to fence jumpers, and questionable

cars.

The frequency cannot diminish the security response to these threats since perhaps weakening

the security is the goal, leading up to a real attack.

It's also important to note that sometimes, these incidents can be used as tests to see

the response or look for loopholes, in master planning an actual attack.

There's no amount of security and seriousness that's too much when it comes to any first

family's safety, but especially the Trumps who are under increased and constant attack

by lunatics who feel justified in following through on a deadly threat.

It also came to light that the Secret Service is out of cash and unable to adequately staff

President Trump and his family.

Although the blame for this was first placed on the Trumps and the size of his immediate

and extended family combined, the truth is, there wouldn't be such a great need if there

wasn't such an imminent threat posed by the incensed left.

That threat is clear, present, and very real and there are many, unfortunately, out there

who are so disillusioned by the Democrat party that they are willing and hoping to go out

as a martyr for the cause.

There have never been so many security breaches at the White House as there have been while

the Trumps have lived there.

This is not because of him, it's due to the instability that Democrats instill in

their liberal followers who are more than willing to do their dirty work.

It began with a series of "fence jumpers," a trend which seems to have gotten under control

recently by Secret Service.

Now, there are countless "mystery packages" found on the property.

One can't help but wonder if all of these failed attempts are "test runs" for a

bigger event that homegrown terrorist or others are preparing for to see what they could successfully

get away with.

What do you think about this?

Please share this news and scroll down to Comment below and don't forget to subscribe

Top Stories Today.

For more infomation >> Hillary's Right-Hand Woman Announces Run For California Governor, And Democrats Are Pissed - Duration: 2:39.

-------------------------------------------

Ruger SR40c IWB Holster for Concealed Carry - Alien Gear Holsters - Duration: 3:22.

Upgrade your Ruger SR9c or SR40c to a whole new level of comfort and concealment with

the ShapeShift 4.0 IWB Holster.

Improving on the award-winning Cloak Tuck 3.0, the ShapeShift 4.0 has a single mounting

point, allowing the holster base to flex and conform to your side.

This, combined with an all-new layer of breathable CoolVent neoprene, delivers the most comfort

possible without any exposed hardware against your skin.

The 4.0 is now edge bound and wraps completely around the holster; unifying every layer,

giving you a pristine and practical form factor which not only looks great, but feels exceptional.

Our textured 4.0 Alien Skin covers the surface of the holster, providing the perfect drag

to your draw.

Drawing and holstering has never felt more secure.

The ergonomical quick draw cut on the side, has been specifically engineered to give you

the best full firing grip possible.

Our ShiftShell is made of a durable, premium polymer allowing for a unique form of retention.

An adjustable retention unit locks your firearm into place with an audible click; and is customizable

for a tighter or looser draw.

Cant and ride height are also customizable with a set of exclusive tool-less clips.

The base of the holster contains a stainless spring-steel core that retains a consistent

shape no matter how intense your activity level is.

The ShapeShift 4.0 has been designed for safety; as the trigger is completely covered at every

angle; all the way to the grip of the gun.

You'll have peace of mind knowing that the trigger will only be touched when and where

you want.

Our team has managed to expedite the 4.0's changeability to accommodate your carrying

needs.

It's now easier than ever before with only a twist and a slide.

This revolutionary holster is fully compatible with the entire ShapeShift system, allowing

you to effortlessly shift to any of our OWB, IWB and tactical holsters.

Our holsters are made in America and include only the best high-quality materials that

we back with a Forever Warranty and a 30-Day Test Drive.

Join the future of concealed carry.

Available now at AlienGearHolsters.com

For more infomation >> Ruger SR40c IWB Holster for Concealed Carry - Alien Gear Holsters - Duration: 3:22.

-------------------------------------------

Warning about tax scammers: Ben Has Your Back - Duration: 2:03.

For more infomation >> Warning about tax scammers: Ben Has Your Back - Duration: 2:03.

-------------------------------------------

MC TH - Falando de Mais - Música Nova 2018 (Lançamento de Funk 2018) - Duration: 2:26.

For more infomation >> MC TH - Falando de Mais - Música Nova 2018 (Lançamento de Funk 2018) - Duration: 2:26.

-------------------------------------------

Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - Discrimination at JMU (Video 4 of 5) - Duration: 8:52.

Hi my name is Maya Rivers and I'm a senior Psychology major here at JMU and also a research

assistant as a part of the Cultural and Racial Diversity Studies Lab.

I'll be talking us through section 3 of Madison Matters' campus climate study discussing campus

experiences of discrimination.

For this video we're only going to discuss the qualitative questions that have to do

with campus experiences of discrimination.

However, if you're interested in knowing more about the dataset and all aspects of the study,

please feel free to contact Madison Matters at madisonmattersjmu@gmail.com.

In the next few slides, I'll be discussing the data from students who witnessed or experienced

discrimination on campus, the reason for discrimination, the type or form of discrimination they experienced,

where it took place, and also the perpetrator.

Question 7 of the study asked the participants to check either yes or no if, during their

time at JMU, they have personally experienced discrimination because of biological sex,

gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious background, socio-economic

status, race or ethnicity, disability, country of origin, or language background or accent.

You'll notice that the sample size may change from slide to slide, as some participants

did not provide an answer for all items.

Results from this section of the study, though, show that students are most likely to experience

discrimination because of their biological sex.

191 of the 1,435 participants who completed this section of the survey selected "yes"

for the religious background criteria.

11.7% of the participants reported discrimination based on religious background.

9.7% reported discrimination based on socio-economic status, and 12.9% reported discrimination

based on race or ethnicity.

Finally, approximately 6.2% of the population reported that they had experienced discrimination

due to sexual orientation.

About 1 out of 3 participants of our survey reported that they had experienced discrimination

on campus at least once.

You might also notice on the graph that some participants reported experiencing discrimination

based upon gender identity and gender expression.

Although discrimination as a result of the categories is not as large as others, it may

be helpful to know the difference between the two.

Gender identity is the mental and psychological aspect of how individuals identify their gender.

Gender expression, on the other hand, is the manifestation of gender, such as how one acts,

dresses, etc.

Question 8 of the study analyzes cases in which discrimination was witnessed, in comparison

to experienced.

The participants were asked to indicate if they had witnessed discrimination based upon

the same items presented in the previous slide, and also in a yes/no response style.

More than half of our sample reported that they witnessed discrimination at least once

on campus.

Notice that that's a much larger number of participants who witnessed discrimination

than experienced discrimination on campus.

In fact, the total number of reports of incidents of witnessed discrimination was well over

3,000, which is more than 3 times the amount of reports of personal experiences of discrimination,

as I mentioned on the previous slide.

The green bars on the graph represent the sample of those who experienced discrimination

on campus, whereas the blue bars represent the sample of those who witnessed discrimination

on campus.

As you can see, many more of the participants indicated that they witnessed discrimination

on campus as compared to those who reported that they experienced discrimination on campus.

I'm going to talk through the two largest categories that we noticed here, which were

race and ethnicity and sexual orientation.

About 500 of the participants reported that they witnessed discrimination based upon race

and ethnicity on campus, whereas approximately 130 of the participants reported that they

experienced discrimination based on race and ethnicity on campus.

This tells us that there are a lot more cases of discrimination on campus than people are

reporting experiencing.

About 450 of the participants reported that they experienced discrimination on campus

based upon sexual orientation, whereas less than 100 reported that they experienced discrimination

based on sexual orientation.

This tells us that discrimination based on sexual orientation is also underreported as

it is for race and ethnicity.

Question 9 of the survey asked the participants to identify the types of discrimination they

have personally experienced on campus.

The participants were asked to select all that apply from the following: verbal harassment,

online/social media remarks, graffiti, fear or threat of physical violence or assault,

actual physical violence or assault, property damage, harassment due to being in the "wrong"

bathroom or locker room, or fear of negative consequences from disclosing some aspect of

your identity to an instructor, administrator, supervisor, or peer.

33% of the participants reported that they had experienced discrimination in the form

of online/social media remarks, while 22% of the participants of this section of the

study indicated that they have experienced verbal harassment on JMU's campus, while 12.4%

of the participants reported that they experienced discrimination associated with a fear of negative

consequences from disclosing some aspect of their identity to an instructor, administrator,

supervisor, or peer.

This study is similar to other campus climate studies in its nature.

However, in consulting with Madison Equality, a campus-wide organization that focuses on

JMU's LGBTQ+ community, we decided to add two additional microaggressive items.

Those items include the fear of negative consequences and the "wrong" bathroom categories.

Notice even though 12.4% of the reports of discrimination concerned fear of negative

consequences from disclosing some aspect of their identity, that number was larger than

the number of LGBTQ+ participants in the sample.

When we investigated this 12.4%, we found that students were uncomfortable discussing

their religion or disability with an instructor or peer.

There are also 53 reports of fear of being in the "wrong" bathroom or locker room, and

this number included 100% of our transgender sample.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that the total number of reports, which is at about

2,600, is higher than that in question 7.

This could be due to the microaggressions included in this section, and also that some

students perhaps didn't know that cyberbullying was a form of discrimination.

Question 11 of the survey only concerns the participants that did report experiencing discrimination.

The participants were asked to identify areas in which they experienced discrimination on

campus.

They were asked to select all that apply from a provided list of common campus areas.

37.9% of the participants reported that they experienced discrimination in a residence

hall, while 20.7% reported that they experienced discrimination in other areas, which may include

at a party, in off-campus housing, a parking garage, or much more.

Finally, approximately 13.6% of participants experienced discrimination in the classroom.

This information may suggest that students and teachers are often the perpetrators of

discrimination on campus.

Question 12 of the survey asked participants to identify the source of discrimination if

they have ever experienced it on campus.

The participants were asked to select all that apply from a possible list of perpetrators.

The results show that the most common source of discrimination at JMU was other students,

with about 65.5% of the participants reporting that they had experienced discrimination from

their peers.

9.7% of the participants reported that they didn't know, while 9.1% reported the faculty

as a source.

This data falls in line with the findings described in the previous slide.

Overall, this data can be helpful in discrimination prevention techniques through programming,

education, resource building, etc.

As Dr. Lee mentioned in his earlier video, JMU's CFI, or Center for Faculty Innovation,

is a very useful resource for training faculty on issues related to diversity.

However, in addition to faculty, it is important that the JMU community as a whole becomes

more proactive in preventing discrimination on campus.

Please tune in to my colleague Bri's video for a student perspective of what will make

the campus climate a little bit better.

So we just wanted to say thanks so much for watching our series of videos about the JMU

campus climate.

For more information about the climate, you can click on any of the links in our YouTube

series, or send us an email to madisonmattersjmu@gmail.com.

For more infomation >> Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - Discrimination at JMU (Video 4 of 5) - Duration: 8:52.

-------------------------------------------

L'isola dei Famosi, Francesca Cipriani bacia Giucas Casella | Wind Zuiden - Duration: 3:26.

For more infomation >> L'isola dei Famosi, Francesca Cipriani bacia Giucas Casella | Wind Zuiden - Duration: 3:26.

-------------------------------------------

Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - General Well-Being (Video 2 of 5) - Duration: 9:10.

So today we will be looking at section 1 of our campus climate survey called

Madison Matters. Section 1 looks at general well-being. In this section we

use two measures to assess general well-being on campus. The first one is

the mental health inventory otherwise known as MHI and this is a measure which

a higher score indicates a worse off mental health. Questions that we used to

assess that are things such as, "during the past month how much of the time were

you a happy person or have you felt calm and peaceful?"

The second survey measure that we use to assess general well-being is

satisfaction with life. In this case a higher score will represent a higher

satisfaction with life so this is questions like in most ways my life is

close to my ideal or the conditions of my life are excellent. In this specific

slide we will be looking at race, gender, biological sex, and sexual orientation.

This blue box right here will show us significant results. Right here these

asterisks are indicating whether or not those results are significant and

these symbols under the categories like these triangles here they represent when

there's a significant difference between different groups. So for race we did not

find any significant differences in our data on MHI across the different racial

groups. For gender we found significant differences across all three groups

including female, male, and transgender. Transgender have the significantly

highest reported MHI which means that they have a worse off mental health

status. Next up we have female students and the lowest mental health inventory

score is by our male students so male students on campus are reporting

significantly better mental health status than our female and transgender

students. For biological sex we have significant differences between our

female and male students again where male students have a significantly lower

score meaning that they have a better mental health status. And finally for

sexual orientation we are measuring this demographic in four categories including

heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and other and we found significant

differences between heterosexual and other in that heterosexual students have

a lower reported mental health inventory score than our students who identify in

an other status of sexual orientation category so those other students do have

a worse mental health experience. For this next slide we are again looking at

mental health inventory across different demographics.

In this slide we're specifically looking at class year, residential status,

citizenship status, and language background. These results were analyzed in the same

manner our last slides were using analysis of variance for our large

categories of three or more and t-tests for our smaller categories comparing

two groups. In this slide we did not find any significant results meaning

that our mental health status was experienced similarly for students of

all class years, for all residential statuses, for all citizenship statuses,

and for all language backgrounds. For ability status we have a few different

significant findings. Our first one is that students with no disability have a

lower mental health inventory than students that have a disability

identified as mental health issues so students with no disability have a

better mental health status and those with mental health issues. Again for

ability status students that have a mental health issue related ability

status have a higher MHI score than those students with an ADHD or learning

disorder ability status so students again with these mental health issues

have a worse sense of mental health. Income levels we actually did not have

any significant findings on mental health inventory and whether or not a

student was a student athlete did not show any indication of their mental

health inventory as well. So these next few slides we will be looking at the

satisfaction with life measure across the different demographic variables.

These measures were analyzed in the same way our MHI was for larger demographic

variables that have three or more groups we use an analysis of variance F test

and for the ones with just two groups we use t-tests to measure the significance

levels. Again you can look at this blue box right here to see where our

significant findings are and then you can use these symbols under these

categories and see what groups they were between so for this slide we are looking

at race, gender, biological sex, and sexual orientation. We had a significant finding

in the race category. White students had a higher satisfaction with life

score than our Black and African-American students so on average

our white students are experiencing higher satisfaction with their lives.

There were no significant findings for gender or biological sex however you

will notice that while there was not significant finding we have a very much

smaller mean for these transgender students so we may not have had a sample

size large enough to get significance but you can tell there are still

differences across these groups. And finally for sexual orientation we found

again like MHI that our heterosexual students have a higher satisfaction with

life score than our other students do. For this slide will be looking at

satisfaction with life across class year, residential status, citizenship status, and

language background. Our first demographic is class year and we looked

at it in categories of freshman/first-year, sophomore, junior, senior, graduate, and

other. In this other category we have continuing education or non-traditional

students and we found that our other category does have a significantly lower

satisfaction with life than all other categories.

So those four normal class years and graduate students have a higher

satisfaction with life. In our next area we did not find a significant difference

for residential status however we found a significant difference in citizenship

status. You'll see here that naturalized citizens or green card students have a

lower satisfaction with life than our US-born students do. We did not find any

significant differences as far as language background goes.

So for this next slide we'll be looking at satisfaction with life across ability status,

income, and student athletic status. In this first category we found that

students with a mental health condition have a lower satisfaction with life

compared to students that do not have a disability. In our next level we found that

students that are coming from families under $60,000 a year for annual income

so these three categories have a lower satisfaction of life than students who

come from a family with $100,000 or more in annual income. This could be because

these students have to work more hours in order to help pay for their education

instead of joining other student organizations or hanging out with their

friends as their higher socioeconomic peers might. In our last category we

found no significant differences on satisfaction with life or whether or not

a student was a student athlete. We can identify some of our most vulnerable

populations as transgender, female, students with mental health conditions,

Black and African-American students, non-traditional students or continuing

education, naturalized citizen or green card residents, or students from a lower

socioeconomic status. In my colleague Bri's video on section 5 you'll learn

about the resources and students' awareness about those resources at JMU.

So if you are an instructor at JMU watching this video you should be

considering how the students in your classrooms are experiencing their

general well-being and how you can be more accommodating to them and reach out

with resources. If you are a student watching this you should consider how

your peers are and the experiences they have based on their demographics. You

should be able to advocate within student life and your student

organizations for these groups.

So we just wanted to say thanks so much for

watching our series of videos about the JMU campus climate for more information

about the climate you can click on any of the links in our YouTube series or

send us an email to madisonmattersjmu@gmail.com.

For more infomation >> Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - General Well-Being (Video 2 of 5) - Duration: 9:10.

-------------------------------------------

Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - Introduction and Demographics Video 1 of 5 - Duration: 14:35.

Hi everybody, my name is Dr. Matt Lee. I am an associate professor here at James

Madison University and I'm the director of the Madison Matters project, which is

a huge campus climate survey that's now become an advocacy project here at JMU.

So the background of the Madison Matters project is that our project was a joint

collaboration between my research lab in the Department of Psychology which is

the CARDS Lab, the Cultural and Racial Diversity Studies Lab and the LGBTQ

faculty listserv. So a couple of years ago members of the LGBTQ listserv

actually contacted me and my lab and asked us if we were willing to help them

construct a student climate survey and at the time the listserv was interested

in identifying climate experiences of the LGBTQ faculty and staff and because

they were unable to do that they thought that investigating student

experiences of climate would still help them understand more of what was going

on. So the purpose of this series of videos is to discuss our dataset to

help you, our audience, try to make informed decisions about programming,

hiring, and priority setting by trying to get a more thorough understanding of

some of the different demographic backgrounds of our students and

different dimensions of campus climate in which some of our students are either

struggling or are doing well. If at any point you are interested in contacting

us to consult on some of the work that you are doing or you're interested in

learning more about our survey or our results you can contact us at

madisonmattersjmu@gmail.com and we'll also give you some contact information at the

very end of the video. I'd like to thank Art Dean and the JMU Office of Access and Inclusion,

the JMU Department of Psychology, and Paul Mabrey from

Communication Studies for providing us with support as well as funding for

carrying out this project and a huge thanks to all the students and interns

who have worked with us over the years creating some of this content, analyzing

data, and presenting data at a number of different sites thank you very much for

all your help with this project. So this is a photograph of the current

Madison Matters team. We are currently a research and

advocacy project run by the CARDS Lab in the Department of Psychology and so we

collected this data back in 2015 and over the past year and a half we have

been communicating with a number of different offices on campus try to help

them in understanding more of what's going on with the campus climate as well

as provide ideas and brainstorm about what to do about student climate issues.

One of the biggest collaborations that we've conducted this year has been with

JMU's CFI, the Center for Faculty Innovation, in which I partnered with

Emily Gravett and Andreas Broscheid at CFI to create a new institute on

inclusive methods in the classroom. So faculty in this institute are learning a

little bit more about some of the data that we collected in our survey as well

as the demographics of JMU students as well as learning new ideas about how to

create activities and create a positive learning environment for all of our

students. Our main goal right now is to try to promote more dialogue and

advocacy around issues of diversity and inclusion at JMU by using facts by using

data that we have collected and so all of our staff including our Psych and

SMAD undergraduates are trained in data analysis, interpretation, and

communication and many of our students have been involved in meetings and

planning events where we are communicating more about the data that

we have collected. So I'd encourage you to check out our YouTube channel to see

more of the videos that we've done of some of the events that we've created

over the past few years. So what is campus climate? Campus climate refers to

the current attitudes, behaviors, and standards and practices of employees and

students of an institution. So it's looking at what the demographics are as

well as how positively people think of one another and if they're actually

getting involved in friendships and relationships with one another if

students trust their faculty members if students trust the institution and feel

connected to the institution. So the last quantitative measure of campus climate

conducted here was actually done by myself and Dr. Dena Pastor back in 2009

and this was project in which we found many minority

students actually reported worse indicators of campus climate compared to

many majority students and specifically some of those groups that were more

vulnerable or reported higher levels of discrimination

included Black, Asian, non-Christian, disabled, or female

students and those students tend to fare worse compared to White, Christian,

non-disabled, and male students and so one of the reasons that we conducted our

survey in 2015 was to help see if there is any change or if there's something

new that we could identify in the more current dataset. We know that campus

climate correlates with a number of outcomes including psychological

well-being, GPA, mental health, and experiences of discrimination and what

you'll see is you watch through a series of videos is that a lot of the findings

actually mirror some national trends in campus climate and some of the other

research that's been conducted at other universities. So one thing that's

really great about our survey is that we expanded our demographic categories to

try to really understand more of how students identify and how that might

matter in their experiences of campus climate and I would like to point out

again at the time that this research was being conducted and even at the time of

publication of this video, this was the largest campus climate dataset of its

kind ever conducted at JMU. We recruited students through GCOM classes and GPSYC

classes for class credit or students who found out about our survey

through message boards bulk email, TV ads, or flyers in academic buildings or on

the Commons could actually participate and enter their email address into a

raffle to win one of twenty gift cards. So briefly, these are the six sections of

our survey and if you notice here we selected measures that were related to

campus climate or correlated to campus climate in addition to more direct

measures of campus climate, so we include the measures of psychological well-being

as well as experiences of discrimination and classroom experiences in addition to

our general perceptions of campus climate. Our fifth section of

the survey will cover awareness and use of campus resources dedicated to

diversity and multiculturalism and then our final survey will cover the

demographics of our sample and in this video I'll be reviewing the major

demographics from our sample. I'd also like to point out that many of the

sections in this survey repeat the campus climate survey items from 2009

and so if you find a copy of the 2009 climate report you can compare some of

the results from that survey to our current investigation. Okay so I'll

finish this video by just reviewing the demographics of our student sample which

again we had just over 7% of the student body complete the survey and as you

notice here I'll be very thorough in describing the different categories that

students used to self-identify. I do want to point out that although JMU asks

about many of these questions on the application process what Madison Matters

did was expand the number of demographic categories and the number of options

that students had to self-identify. For example, when we investigated race, we

also included Arabic and Middle Eastern as a category and if you investigate our

actual results you will see that JMU is a predominantly White campus and

we have an under-representation of Hispanic/Latinx and Black and African

American students compared to the national averages, however our sample

does look fairly representative to what we do know about JMU student

demographics as published on the JMU website. We also asked about both gender

and biological sex so when we refer to gender it's more the person's

psychological sense of self and when we asked about biology we're asking more

about a person's physical sense of self and so you might notice a difference

here in the results for gender and biological sex. Both of the results show

that we do in fact have a majority female campus which we know from

JMU demographics, but we also had fourteen students who self-identified as

transgender. Now in some of our follow up videos, you will notice that we included

some of these smaller demographic categories for purposes of illustration

and those of you who are really into data would know that some of the sample

sizes are possibly too small to permit for analysis but for purposes of really

illustrating some of the major categories of cultural identities, we did

in fact include transgender in our analyses. For other categories such as

Native-American and intersex we omitted those students from follow-up analyses.

Lastly I want to mention that for sexual orientation students actually had a

checklist and can check more than one option so the majority of our students

self-identified as heterosexual followed by 41 bisexual and you'll see here the

rest of the categories. Now queer refers to students who maybe do not identify as

heterosexual. The term pansexual may refer to students who are attracted to

people regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation and the

term asexual may refer to students who may have no romantic or sexual

attraction to others and so a couple things I'd like to point out about this:

number one, many of these demographic identifiers and the percentages received

are actually very similar to the percentages of people who identify with

these same categories in other campus climate surveys. Secondly

for purposes of data analysis which you'll see in some of our other videos

we included heterosexual students as a category and bisexual students as a

category. We also created the third category for students who are homosexual

so if they wrote homosexual or gay or lesbian we included them as a third

category and then any student who recorded some other sexual orientation

we were able to include as a fourth category which would then allow us to

compare these four groups to one another in follow-up analyses. You'll see that

the majority of our sample were first-year students and we had nine

students who were mostly continuing education students so slightly older

than the rest of the sample. I do simply want to point this out because we did

include follow-up analysis in that we found some differences based

on being a non-traditional student. Based on citizenship status as well as

residency status, we find that most of our students are both US born or Virginia

residents and then finally we asked about native language which is also a

new category for JMU to consider. The grand majority of our sample

self-identified as being English native language speakers with about less than

10% self identifying as being bilingual or multilingual. Our last demographic

slide reveals that the grand majority of our students identified as Christian

although almost 400 identified as non-religious. Now I would like to point

out in some of the talks we've been giving at other audiences some people

are surprised but we know that developmentally many college students

are at the age where they are beginning to question whether or not they want to

pursue the same religious identity or background as the one they may have been

exposed to by their parents or caregivers while growing up, so

this number is actually fairly normal compared to other campus climate surveys.

We also asked about ability status which refers to the presence or absence of a

psychological or physical disability and although we found that the majority of

our students reported having no disability about one out of every seven

students reported having some sort of mental health disorder which may have

included something like depression or anxiety. 92 students identified with ADHD

or a learning disorder and 21 students recorded a sensory or motor disability

and so by breaking up this question into other categories we do have a much

better understanding about some of the general categories that students use for

their ability status. Now in this slide you'll also see the parental income and

you might well notice that the JMU student body and and our sample in fact

tend to come from fairly well-to-do backgrounds. Almost a third of our sample

comes from that highest income bracket in the United States with households of

making $100,000 or greater. The middle class which would probably be our fourth

category of income between $40,000 and $60,000 is a much smaller sample size

in our sample with only about one out of every seven

students coming from the actual middle class and even fewer students than

that coming from lower income brackets. Finally I would just like to mention

that we included athlete status as part of our general investigation of campus

climate and it does in fact become relevant even though a very small number

of students self-identify as athletes. You'll see in some of the other videos that

we have about our survey that being an athlete actually may contribute to

different experiences of the campus climate. So just in conclusion of my

video, one thing to be thinking about in terms of using this data is, how

demographically representative is your programming? Is your department? Are the

students that are taking classes in your major? And secondly what are some

demographic questions that you should be asking that maybe aren't currently being

asked by your department or by the university? So one thing we're really

hopeful that happens from you watching our videos and hearing about

our climate research is that you can do something useful with this information

to ask better questions, ask more questions, and really tailor your

programming or your curriculum or your services to meet the needs of a student

body whose demographics are rapidly changing. So we just wanted to say thanks

so much for watching our series of videos about the JMU campus climate. For

more information about the climate you can click on any of the links in our

YouTube series or send us an email to madisonmattersjmu@gmail.com.

For more infomation >> Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - Introduction and Demographics Video 1 of 5 - Duration: 14:35.

-------------------------------------------

Roger Ver - Entrevista Exclusiva para o Canal Dash Dinheiro Digital Brasil em Anarchapulco 2018 - Duration: 12:59.

hi everybody Rod here from Dash

digital cash Brazil we're in Anarchpulco

Mexico Acapulco and today I have the

pleasure to interview the biggest name

in Bitcoin in the world today Roger Ver

welcome to the program. Thank You, it is a

pleasure to meet you and I want to start

on a positive note saying that I've got

into Bitcoin around 2014 after following

and and finding some videos of you on

on YouTube talking about Bitcoin &

cryptocurrencies today the entire

cryptocurrency ecosystem and I'm talking

about Bitcoin core Bitcoin cash Dash Digital

cash Ethereum we wouldn't be where we

are today if it wasn't for your initial

investment and and how you believe into

this new technology that would change

how we organize societies and for that

we must pay you always pay the maximum

respect to you and I thank you for that. thank

you

so Roger today what is the biggest

advantage for us regarding understanding

the truth vision of Satoshi Nakamoto

once we talk about Bitcoin cash

so I don't think it's the fact that it's

Satoshi's vision that that's important I

think it's the fact that we have the

empirical evidence showing that it works

and before the invention of Bitcoin I

had my back educational background was

in economics so I had all this evidence

from books mainly and some empirical

evidence as well so it's a whole other

story

that I knew people were gonna start

using Bitcoin as money and so the

economic formula that the original

Bitcoin had I knew people were gonna

start using as money so my goal was to

go out there and build all the tools to

make it easier

for people to start using it as money

and sure enough with that economic

formula Bitcoin became this worldwide

phenomenon that it is today and Bitcoin

core today has veered off of that

economic code onto something else that

all of my educational background tells

me isn't likely to work and so the

original code economic code for Bitcoin

is that the transactions were fast cheap

and reliable and we thought private now

Bitcoin core has the exact opposite they

want to be slow expensive and unreliable

well we have you know 7 or plus years 8

plus years of empirical evidence on

Bitcoin knowing that it works incredibly

well when the transactions are fast

cheap and reliable and people start

using it all over the world

I'm not bullish on the future of Bitcoin

core I'm incredibly bullish on the

future of Bitcoin cash because it has

that same economic hype that led to it

becoming his success in the first place

and so the important part isn't that

it's satoshi's vision because this is

what Satoshi wrote in the white paper

the important part is that we know that

it works and if something works that's

what counts you can wish something else

works all day long but if it doesn't

work it doesn't work and at no point in the

white paper he says anything about

blockchain this was a word created by

the media and also the the increase of

the block size was on the white paper

that it should have come once the block

gets full automatically move forward and

increase the block

size so today how how important it is to

understand this fight

that they're holding

Bitcoin core to actually making money

out of transactions because it is quite

simple to increase the block size and

move to two megabytes like Dash Digital Cash 90 00:03:17,440 --> 00:03:21,310 over but your big fan and we're gonna

talk about that in a while Dash took 24

hours on a voting system to decided

let's increase the block size and then

and and Bitcoin core has been holding

this back because there's a large group

of miners making money out of this how

this will actually decrease the

credibility of the ecosystem for Bitcoin

core and of course give space for

Bitcoin cash Dash Digital Cash and other

crypytocurriencies with a serious project I

think the credibility has already been

damaged we watched bitcoins market share

plummet from 98 percent down to around

30 something percent at the moment low

30 something percent and in my book

that's been incredibly damaging so a

couple of years ago there certainly

wouldn't have been a you know any other

cryptocurrencies here displaying it that

on our control but would have only been

Bitcoin but now we have dashe here

Komodo is here Pivix is here there's a

bunch of them here and that's great

that's fine but if Bitcoin have just

been allowed to scale there wouldn't

have been a need for - or any of these

other ones it could have all been done

on top of Bitcoin and yet some of these

Bitcoin core supporters still don't see

see the lost opportunity that they had

with Bitcoin I think the worldwide

adoption of cryptocurrency has been

delayed by several years because of this

infighting within Bitcoin over the

scaling and I'm glad now we have Dash and a

thousand and one other cryptocurrencies

out there because at the

of the day the best one is going to win

that's the most useful for the most

number of people around the world but

life is short I wanted these benefits

they're gonna be brought to the world by

cryptocurrencies to come today not

several years from now and I feel like

we could have been several years into

the future already today in

cryptocurrency adoption how we not run

into this scaling debate with Bitcoin is

it time to stop being nice and start

pointing fingers to people and say

listen you guys are the ones

manipulating this in order to make money

on transactions it slow down this system

is is there possibility that there's a

system behind like the banking system

manipulating Bitcoin core and then

trying to keep this and Bitcoin cash

is in a way that it's way faster way

cheaper to use and it's working

perfectly

yeah I don't know how much good

finger-pointing and name-calling does

the Bitcoin core supporters main

argument against Bitcoin cash is to call

it a funny name b- cash but calling

Bitcoin cash be cash isn't an argument

against the usefulness of Bitcoin cash

all you need to do to figure it out is

go and use some it works in you know

Bitcoin real cash transactions are fast

cheap and reliable Bitcoin core

transactions are slow expensive and

unreliable you don't have to be a rocket

scientist to figure out which version of

Bitcoin is going to be more useful to

more people around the world and we're

seeing that happen day after day week

after week the the rate of Bitcoin cash

growth is far outpacing the rate of

Bitcoin core growth and let's talk a

little bit about Dash Digital Cash I know

you're big fan how important is the

ecosystem of Dash on your point of view

have been 45 percents of the value of

the coins just mind going to the

masternodes forty five percent going to

the miners and ten percent for Treasury

where the money will be reinvest

to the cryptocurrency in order to create

more value I think the fact that dash

has gotten so popular so quickly all

over the world is a combination of two

factors one is the Bitcoin scaling war

and then the other is that this is a

fantastic system that seems to be

working very well there's a lot of

empirical evidence now that shows that

sending some of the funds to this

promotion organization within Dash which I

think the total monthly budget now is

well into the millions of dollars

yeah it's between four to six million

dollars that's huge right four to six

million dollars a month can buy you a

lot of advertising and we're seeing that

I'm Dash it's growing all over the world

because of that that's really really

impressive I I'm skeptical that the

total marketing budget for all the

Bitcoin companies both Bitcoin core and

Bitcoin cash I doubt it's that big per

month to be honest so you guys have a

bigger you know you guys know I own some

Dash as well so good good Dash community the Dash

community has a bigger marketing budget

than the the Bitcoin community and why

is Dash popular because the transactions

are fast cheap and reliable and I hope

they're private but I I'm a little bit

skeptical as to just how private Dash

transactions are and one of the really

dangerous things is when you think your

transaction is private it's not so

everybody out there in both Dash and

Bitcoin world be very very careful if

you think you're making a private

transaction don't don't don't feel

overly confident in that what my channel

actually from Brazil actually I

presented proposed asking funds for dash to

actually present dash digital cash in a

brand new market in Portuguese it's

being working extremely well and so on

the side of Bitcoin cash now so who

sponsors Bitcoin Cash

where the money comes from to to pay for

conferences for the giveaways the

marketing how is this being done inside

Bitcoin captured at home so almost all

of its just from the most of the

supporters are Bitcoin cash or early

Bitcoin supporters like myself I've been

involved since February of 2011 Bitcoin

cash is this the speech that I've been

giving about Bitcoin since 2011 is the

same one that I give today it currently

is accurate when describing to coin cash

not Bitcoin core but where does all the

money come from it's all the early

adopters like me and the people running

businesses and the people that actually

care about this so that's that's where

it's coming from it's people that

genuinely care and want to see

cryptocurrencies improve the entire fund

you'll notice that there's a whole bunch

of hostility from Bitcoin core

supporters it gives to every other coin

they don't just take Bitcoin cash they

hate Dash they hate Ethereum they do

everything that's not Bitcoin core

whereas you'll see Bitcoin cash people

and Dash people in deterring people they're

fine like little a thousand flowers

bloom right everybody can try whatever

experiment you want there is room for

everybody so don't try and tear down

your opponents try and build the best

possible cryptocurrency you can and

that's what the Bitcoin cash community

are doing and I think part of why

there's so much hostility between

Bitcoin core and Bitcoin cash

specifically is that Bitcoin core team

is on the completely different roadmap

than what the original version of

Bitcoin was so if you want to try some

completely different experiment with a

totally different economic code that's

fine more power to you but don't steal

the brand name that Bitcoin originally

had and that's why I think a lot of

Bitcoin cash people are so upset and the

Bitcoin core people are upset with

Bitcoin cash people but all the Bitcoin

cash people I know love Dahs love Monero

love Ethereum take your pick

well we're not even at one trillion

dollar market cap in the entire

ecosystem which is a very it's a very

small fraction comparing to gold market

cap or to the entire a bonds market or

the entire banking system so it is

essential for the cryptocurrency

communities to actually stick together

and support each other and then create

and develop new ideas and Roger one

question kind of personal you were a

self-made millionaire before Bitcoin

you you understood this before anybody

else you invested personal money you

invested this you keep invest and

spending your money your personal money

to make this project work in a global

scale what's the true ideology that

drives you to actually do this and not

just say you know what I have enough

money I could have buy a private island

my jets and my cars and I'm out of here

yeah for for me it's it's it's not about

making a bunch of money it's about in

making the entire world a better place

because I want to live in a world that's

a better place and then when I look

around the world the thing that I really

see being a problem the world is that

you have these small groups of people

bossing everybody else around and these

small groups of people act like we know

what's best for everybody you're going

to obey us and if you don't obey us

we're going to hurt you that's craziness

that's madness that sort of thing needs

to stop and I see cryptocurrencies as a

tool to empower individuals on every

country in the planet to have complete

control of their own lives and just

strip away the power from these

individuals that want to boss everybody

else around so

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are about

empowering the individuals so if you

believe that each individual owns their

own life I think I own my own life and

you own yours and the cameraman owns his

and everybody listening to this owns

their lives if you own your own life you

don't need some politician in some

far-off land to boss you around any more

than you need a mugger on the street

corner to demand your money and crypto

currencies empower the individuals to

have control of their own lives and not

need the politicians to boss them around

anymore for me that's what's exciting

and that's why I got involved originally

and that's why I'm still involved today

and that's why I'm still spending my

money to promote these ideas what's the

future now for Roger Ver what are you

working on that you you want to

implement that you want to actually

share the idea so the main thing I'm

still working on is implementing triplet

currencies being able to be used by

everyone all over the planet as fast as

we possibly can so we met from a bunch

of people in Venezuela yesterday that

are super excited and they told us like

they couldn't afford the fees on Bitcoin

core any longer it was like a month's

salary some tolerance or anybody can't

afford nobody nobody's gonna pay that

and so like they know that I'm all sorts

of all opportunities they're very

excited about Bitcoin cash I'm sure

they're excited about Dash they're people

want something that works they don't

care how good the brand name recognition

is if it doesn't work they're not going

to use it they need something that works

and and Dash is slogan it's awesome digital

cash that's what people want digital

cash and it has to work something with

$50 fees and unreliable transactions

that's math digital cash that's some

science project that about wrong yeah

gone wrong

well we actually we have one of the most

successful proposals for Dash digital cash

is even as well with Eugenia she's doing

a fantastic job there I'll tell you more

about it but Roger here thank you very

much for everything you said it's a

pleasure to meet you I got into Bitcoin

into Dash into Bitcoin because of you into

Dash because of Amanda B Johnson so I'm

actually happy to be doing this as a

full-time job today and going from

conference to conference creating prime

content for our audience in Brazil and

of course around the word thank you once

again and I wish you the best thank you

Dash Dinheiro digital

For more infomation >> Roger Ver - Entrevista Exclusiva para o Canal Dash Dinheiro Digital Brasil em Anarchapulco 2018 - Duration: 12:59.

-------------------------------------------

Woman Stands Up During Nancy Pelosi Speech As She TRASHES Trump, Screams These 6 Words At Her - Duration: 3:57.

Woman Stands Up During Nancy Pelosi Speech As She TRASHES Trump, Screams These 6 Words

At Her.

Nancy Pelosi is a pile of liberal garbage.

And it's well known that she is rich as hell.

So Pelosi held a town hall event Tuesday blasting President Trump and Republicans' tax cuts.

It didn't go quite as planned for the corrupt multi millionaire.

Fox News reports that Pelosi was heckled by a woman at a town hall event Tuesday after

she continued blasting President Trump and Republicans' tax cuts.

"God never intended one group of people to live in superfluous inordinate wealth while

others live in abject deadening poverty," the House minority leader said, adding that

the quote was from Dr. Martin Luther King.

As she finished her sentence, Pelosi was interrupted by a woman in the Phoenix, Arizona, audience

who asked "how much are you worth, Nancy?"

"Are you in abject poverty?" the woman shouted at Pelosi, who is routinely listed

among the wealthiest members of Congress.

NANCY PELOSI HECKLED AT TOWN HALL WHILE CRITICIZING TAX REFORM: "HOW MUCH ARE YOU WORTH NANCY?"

Multimillionaire Nancy Pelosi is heckled at a town hall while criticizing the benefits

of tax reform for everyday Americans.

Be sure to like, subscribe, and comment below to share your thoughts on the video.

Pelosi and her husband Paul Sr., a Georgetown-educated businessman who runs a venture capital firm,

are worth about $100 million.

"We're not talking about that," Pelosi responded, saying that she can talk "louder

than anybody" because she is a mother of five grown children.

She joined Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) at the event, continuing to rail against the

new tax law's effects on everyday Americans.

Pelosi said that the federal budget and tax policy should be a "statement of national

values" and that the plan forwarded by Trump is "the complete opposite."

The former House speaker drew criticism from Republicans in recent weeks after describing

companies' bonuses to workers as "crumbs."

Speaking in West Virginia a few weeks ago, Trump called out Pelosi specifically for the

comment, comparing it to Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" insult toward his supporters

in 2016.

"People are getting 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 dollars.

That's not crumbs.

That's a lot of money," he said.

What do you think about this?

Please share this news and scroll down to Comment below and don't forget to subscribe

YT for next

Thứ Tư, 21 tháng 2, 2018

Youtube daily Feb 21 2018

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét